Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Do you think the Roman Catholic Church wrote the bible.?

The origin of the Bibles of today can be traced to a time when men, SUPPOSEDLY under the divine inspiration of God, first wrote the books of the Bible. Before the fourth century CE, there were more that 30 different gospels, some of which can be found on the Gnostic & Apocrypha page. Many were officially outlawed during the Council Nicaea in 325 CE and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE. These councils eventually agreed on what is now considered the "word of God", under the direction of Constantine, collating the ACCEPTED teachings into a single comprehensive book.

Most of what we now know as the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament largely in Aramaic or common (koine) Greek. Since no printing press existed until 1450 AD, all of the original compilations of the Bible were done by hand.

At the Council of Nicea, the men there had all the manuscripts written by many different people. It was their job to make it into one book for all Christians to learn and follow.

Does anyone really think that the church would have allowed anything into the bible that did not further it's own selfish agenda? They could pick and choose whatever message they wanted to convey.

The church knew that if it taught that their way was the only way to avoid some hellfire and brimstone, it could guarantee that fear would keep the money rolling in.

In the Gospel of Mary Magdalen, she teaches of a Jesus who taught that salvation is achieved through relational and experiential knowledge. In the Mary Magdalene account, salvation is not something that comes from an external saviour. One has to seek salvation within. Thus, the Magdalene gospel depicts Jesus as a teacher rather than as a saviour who dies to atone for humanity's sins.

"Mary's identity as a prostitute stems from Homily 33 of Pope Gregory I, delivered in the year 591... By slandering Mary's reputation, the church could kill two birds with one stone. It could cast doubts on the Gnostic Gospels and keep the women in their place within the church heirarchy. Only in 1969 did the Catholic Church officially repeal Gregory's labeling of Mary Magdalene as a whore, thereby admitting their error.

By the time of the Council of Nicea all the supposed authors of all the letters included in the bible had been long since dead. There was no one alive who could repudiate the bible constructed by the church.

Opinions? I would like to know what you all think.

Thanks for your answers.

Update:

eric k, does that include editing? Did the church add and take away to suite it's needs?

Update 2:

Meghan, this is exactly my point:

4. Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

Update 3:

LOL!! Sorry it is suit, not suite.

Update 4:

No Tess, Jesus would not resort to coercion, in my opinion.

15 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Wow, is your history full of errors!

    1) Do you think the Roman Catholic Church wrote the bible.?

    No - of course not.

    2) Many were officially outlawed during the Council Nicaea in 325 CE and the Council of Laodicea in 364 CE.

    Only a very few at Nicea - which dealt with Arianism and the Arianist texts. The decisions made at the council of Laodicea, to the best of my knowledge, were never adopted by any church. Their biblical canon omitted, for example, Revelation and the entire Apocrypha *except* for Baruch and the letter of Jeremiah.

    3) These councils eventually agreed on what is now considered the "word of God", under the direction of Constantine

    Constantine died in 337 C.E. Laodicea was held in 363 C.E. How exactly did he direct this council?

    4) At the Council of Nicea, the men there had all the manuscripts written by many different people. It was their job to make it into one book for all Christians to learn and follow.

    Who told you this, and why did you believe them? Read this

    http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html

    5) Does anyone really think that the church would have allowed anything into the bible that did not further it's own selfish agenda?

    Since they most certainly did so, I would have to answer, "Yes".

    6) In the Gospel of Mary Magdalen, she teaches of a Jesus who taught that salvation is achieved through relational and experiential knowledge. In the Mary Magdalene account, salvation is not something that comes from an external saviour. One has to seek salvation within. Thus, the Magdalene gospel depicts Jesus as a teacher rather than as a saviour who dies to atone for humanity's sins.

    I see: what you mean is that the gospel of Mary (Magdalene?) directly contradicts the 4 authentic gospels, the ones authenticated in the very early second century.

    The known manuscripts of this gospel date from (at the very earliest)

    a) late 4th century (Akhmim Codex)

    b) mid-3rd century (Oxyrhynchus Papyri L 3525)

    c) early 3rd century (Rylands Papyrus 463)

    It should be obvious why this was not included in preference to the gospels authenticated at least 100 years prior.

    7) Mary's identity as a prostitute stems from Homily 33 of Pope Gregory I, delivered in the year 591... By slandering Mary's reputation, the church could kill two birds with one stone. It could cast doubts on the Gnostic Gospels and keep the women in their place within the church heirarchy. Only in 1969 did the Catholic Church officially repeal Gregory's labeling of Mary Magdalene as a whore, thereby admitting their error.

    You mean: *his* error. Even at that point, Scripture does not tell us that Mary Magdalene was not a whore. I doubt that there was any need to suppress the gospel of Mary in 591. It doesn't even appear in the Decretum Gelasianum.

    http://www.ntcanon.org/Decretum_Gelasianum.shtml

    Opinion: research will help you to avoid making verifiably false claims.

    Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com

    • Jaime5 years agoReport

      You gave the asker a very well researched and historically verifiable answer. Which he acknowledged and even gave you 5 stars . Yethat calls you brainwashed? I'm confused .

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They didn't write the entire bible. The Old Testament is actually the Hebrew Septuagint (from what I understand, this is not the modern day Jewish 'bible'). Many of the books that are in the original OT from the bible are actually quoted and referred to throughout the NT (some of these books were removed by Protestants, but that's another story-- er, argument).

    As for the New Testament, yes, you could say that "Catholics" were the authors of the New Testament, because the Catholic Church is the original and first Christian Church (which all the apostles were part of in the beginning when Jesus established it-- and since they were essentially Catholic and wrote the books/letters included in the bible then you could say that technically Catholics wrote it). They were the ones responsible for carrying on the sacred Tradition established by Christ and passing on the good news to future generations.

    Eventually, because of differences in canon and disputes between the churches, the Church decided that they should put together an official Canon. That canon became the bible. The bible wasn't published to be the authority on the Word of God. It was published to be more of a 'guidebook' in teaching and demonstrating the Word of God (to show that Jesus was the Messiah). It was supposed to get everyone on the same page so there wasn't any more problems....obviously that didn't work out quite how they intended now did it?

    The Church holds on to many other sacred writings that were not included in the Bible, but those writings reference many of the writings of the Apostles that are in the Bible. These writings are from some of the greatest teachers the Church ever had, and they even maintain online libraries so you can go read and see just how the early Church Fathers interpreted scripture and exactly what they believed.

    My advice to you is to look up and read about the history of the Bible; it's a real eye-opener.

  • Dust
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    1. All of the books that were included in what eventually came to be known as the New Testament canon had been written by about the turn of the second century. Some were written much earlier (the undisputed letters of Paul date to the 50's, for example), but the very end of the first century is the cut off point.

    2. The Council of Nicea and Laodicea are not relevant to the canon. The canon was officially set in stone by a later 4th century council.

    3. There were many criteria used by early Christians to determine which books should be accepted and which should not. Some of those criteria included:

    Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions). Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century). Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services). Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

    ~~~

    Gorgeous, what's the problem with that criteria? It's one of several, and it makes sense because that is what the earliest Christians taught (granted, not in the later *language* of the Nicean Christians).

  • 4 years ago

    The only Christian church in existence for the first 1500 years was the church known as Catholic (universal) the very same church which was born on Pentecost. The term was first applied to the Christian church in the early 1st century by St. Ignatius. This is fully documented. All the apostles, and all the disciples were Catholic, and all the books of the Bible were selected by the Catholic church. Even Martin Luther admitted that without the traditions of the Catholic church, there would be no bible. Protestant claims about Constantine forcing changes in the church are trumped up false traditions, with absolutely no evidence to support them. History clearly shows that the Roman empire was converted and then destroyed. This was no small feat. The Catholic church remains, just as it will until the end of time. In spite of what you may have thought, or have been told by others, the Catholic faith is the original and most complete faith on the face of the earth. We have the Bible. We have God the Father. We have Jesus Christ. We have the Holy Spirit. We have valid sacraments that truly dispense grace. We have the Mass and Holy Communion. We have the sacred traditions of the apostles. We have Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the communion of all the saints. We have an earthly leader, the pope, who wields the God given authority to settle arguments between various members of the worlwide church. We have our own country, the Vatican. We have a complete body of both dedicated religious scholarship and divine revelation that goes back 2,000 years, all the way back to Jesus Christ himself, and then spans the old testament, all the way back to creation. We also have the great commission, and the irrevocable promises of Christ. Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. None of this happened by chance.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    People who belonged to the Church that would soon be called Catholic wrote the New Testament documents under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and then, the Catholic Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit selected which documents would make up the New Testament.

    According to the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, about the year 33 C.E., the structure of the Church was set up by Jesus Christ before His Ascension and then the early Christian Church was born on Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles and disciples.

    This same Church has referred to itself as the “Catholic Church” at least since 107 C.E. (about 10 years after the last book of the New Testament was written), when the Greek term "Katholikos" (meaning universal) appears in the Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans:

    "Wherever the bishop appear, there let the multitude be; even as wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatiu...

    We do not know how long they had been using the term "Catholic" before it was included in this rare surviving letter.

    All of this was long before the Council of Nicea and the Nicene Creed from 325 C.E. which states, "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm

    With love in Christ.

  • Anonymous
    6 years ago

    Oh, absolutely. The Bible, especially the New Testament, were written by the Roman Catholic Church, for the Roman Catholic Church and is of the Roman Catholic Church. No, if, and, or, but about it.

    The Hebrew Bible, so called "Old Testament by the Roman Catholic Church, was rewritten and corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church for the sole purpose of usurping the 'divine' authority from the hebrews.

    In reality, the Roman Catholic Church was in total control of the entire European population for almost 2 thousand years. All the other christian denominations are nothing more than daughters of the Roman Catholic Church.

    The are all cults, and the Roman Catholic Church is the biggest cult of them all.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    See this :

    Does anyone really think that the church would have allowed anything into the bible that did not further it's own selfish agenda? They could pick and choose whatever message they wanted to convey.

    Isn't it just this, with hate added.

    The Church knew the Faith delivered to them by Jesus Himself. They had the duty as the Church established by Jesus to maintain His agenda in Faith and Morals. So they picked what was genuine and rejected what wasnt.

    And His Message they thus conveyed.

    =====> I don't want you dying and going to Hell but who can answer you when you can't even ask a simple question.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Catholic Church did not write it. The Scriptures already existed prior to the Council of Nicea.

    The Church, once it compiled and canonized the Bible, included those texts they deemed authentic (they didn't add anything, they just didn't include the ones they found *questionable*.

    That you lose meaning in translation, however is possible (but not done on purpose)

    Source(s): Pagan (who studied Catholicism for 19 years)
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Literally wrote? No.

    Exercised self-conscious selection of what texts were included? Yes.

    Edit: Yes, I'm sure some things were changed, though frankly they had so many varying texts to begin with they wouldn't have had to make many deliberate changes to end up with a doctrine favorable to their taste. The culling process alone would have seen to most of that.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    If it is translated from...

    Nestle-Aland: then yes 100%

    Textus Receptus: no, because this the the true manuscripts.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.